Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48810 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-507 Year-2024 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Yadav S/o Late Bhupendra Yadav R/o VillageTamot Parsa Ward no 03, P.S.- Murliganj, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Surya Narayan Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-08-2025 Heard Mr. Surya Narayan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 507 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 25.11.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109 and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. According to prosecution case, on 24.11.2024 at around 2:00 A.M., the accused persons including the petitioner allegedly came armed and began beating the informant's son. When Tara Devi tried to intervene, Sonelal Mahto gave an order and the petitioner allegedly fired at Rajesh Kumar, injuring him below the knee. Co-accused, Mukesh Yadav and Subhash Yadav allegedly brutally assaulted Tara Devi on her shoulder and hand. Sunil Yadav and Manoj Yadav allegedly took away a box containing Rs. 50,000/-.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48810 of 2025(2) dt.01-08-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It appears from the F.I.R. that the F.I.R. is instituted against total 14 accused persons including the petitioner and due to admitted land dispute, the present occurrence has taken place and there is case and counter case between the parties.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from a bare perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that specific allegation of firing is attributed against this petitioner as supported by medical evidence.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 507 of 2024 pending in the court of learned J.M.- 1st Class, Madhepura.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Neha/- U T